Letting go of the checklist: Zombra says you shouldn't do everything in RPGs

[Roguey]

Want to play an RPG where every sidequest is skippable and you can use even the most gimp weapon in the game and still do fine? Then you want to be playing skyrim.

Or Fallout.

 

[Iznaliu]

Want to play an RPG where every sidequest is skippable and you can use even the most gimp weapon in the game and still do fine? Then you want to be playing skyrim

That is a ridiculous strawman that doesn't need to or should be brought up again.

 

[PEACH]

It's not really helpful to conflate skippable content with being able to succeed no matter what. In many games half the reason to skip things in the first place is because the game becomes an incredibly easy slog 2/3 in, if not sooner, making any sense of progression or difficulty evaporate in the first place. Other times side-content is completely superfluous or tedious and could be cut without anyone noticing.

An overwhelming amount of RPGs have tons of filler and sometimes the best way to salvage the experience is to be decisive about what you spend your time doing. I don't think it should be a badge of honor to drink piss just because it's being offered to you. Having a clue about what you want to do will make your experience much better even if it can't change the game itself.

 

[Reapa]

IncendiaryDevice I'm fine with most of that.

An argument for the merits of not vacuum cleaning isn't an attack on vacuuming, it's not a belief that you should never vacuum, etc. All it means is that if at some point you find yourself doing shit that is boring and frustrating just because that barrel or NPC is there and you feel like you have to tick all the boxes, then you should just move on and you probably won't miss a lot. This obviously means if you want to stop and smell the roses, you should, and if you want to spend some hours delving into side content, you should.

As for some of the stuff I can only assume you're talking to someone else not me. Of course something is shit no matter whether you skip it or not, as I've said multiple times. And I don't know what you're arguing against in 4/ or where you're going.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chekhov's_gun
if the game features barrels that can be opened, it better make sure he barrels are worth opening.
i don't need to learn how to play games, the devs need to learn how to make them.

 

[Tigranes]

More people that can't read & argue with nonexistent people

obviously the root problem is shit design, but as long as perfect games do not exist i see no reason to compound my suffering with obsessive vacuuming

 

[Reapa]

More people that can't read & argue with nonexistent people

obviously the root problem is shit design, but as long as perfect games do not exist i see no reason to compound my suffering with obsessive vacuuming

Reapa's answer *NOW WITH SPOILERS* tons of references! and easter eggs!!! if you didn't preorder this post you're gonna be sorry! please donate to help kickstart Reapa's answer 2!!!

There was a beautiful purple prose describing shit when Reapa answered:

it's neither obvious nor accurate. games don't need to be perfect. but they should get basic stuff right, even if they are "just" games. lately this doesn't happen at all any more:

Spoiler

the spoilers are optional

Spoiler

they're there, but you should probably skip them

Spoiler

last warning

Spoiler

click here to buy inpost currency

Spoiler

click here to spend it

coherence is not trendy. logic is for geeks.
fantasy means there's a legendary sword in every fifth dead fish pile.

Spoiler

(dos 2)

narrators get high, invade your every private dialogue and start talking about colors and feelings when you just want to ask a dude what time it is.

Spoiler

(tton)

the invisible hand (of josh) balances your loot.

Spoiler

(poe)

stats act as the narrator of your open world game story telling you when you are supposed to be able to equip the loot you find.

Spoiler

(elex, twitcher, dragon age:inquisition)

npcs are walking wanted ads, vending machines, mindless feral animals.

Spoiler

(fallout 4)

shit design is not the root problem. it's just a symptom of people having no standards and buying any shit that comes along with bloom and voice acting.
DAY 1 DLC: and then making up wild stories about how the games are meant to be played.

 

[Ash]

If I play a good RPG wherein most of the optional content is good and meaningful, I will happily tolerate the bad bits and probably still get something from them anyway, if not then something to bitch about on the codex. If I'm playing a RPG with a lot of bad side content...I'm playing a bad game, and will most likely quit. And yes, most side-content should be looked to as part of the full package/overarching experience, rather than some pick and choose bullshit by design. a developer should assume players will devour all that content, even if the majority won't.

 

[Roguey]

a developer should assume players will devour all that content, even if the majority won't.

To paraphrase JES, they're not going to make a game just for you and ten other angry guys with tastes that are narrower than a hallway in a camp of pygmy dwarves.

 

[luj1]

Fuck you and JES

EDIT: and Infinitron (the cuckshillian trio)

 

[Lilura]

Lacrymas doesnt know what the hell hes talking about.

Understandable: he's not a gamer.

 

[Lacrymas]

Oh my God, people! I'm on your side! I've never advocated for skipping content and giving devs an excuse to make shitty side quests. That's Zombra's point. I only said you can skip anything you want, that's your choice. Whether you miss anything and the can't understand what is going on is on your head.

 

[IncendiaryDevice]

a developer should assume players will devour all that content, even if the majority won't.

To paraphrase JES, they're not going to make a game just for you and ten other angry guys with tastes that are narrower than a hallway in a camp of pygmy dwarves.

They already did though... https://www.tyrannygame.com/

 

[Sigourn]

There are two sides on this discussion advocating to skipping content.

1) Those who say "skip content in order to avoid usually shitty content and turn the game into a boring checklist".
2) Those who say "skip content when it makes sense from a roleplaying point of view to avoid turning the game into a boring checklist".

I personally do not agree with either. 1) is implausible in practice, you never know where the goodies may be found in a videogame. Morrowind has a lot of shitty Ancestral Tombs, but some of them have very nice loot indeed (like Glass equipment or Indoril armor). So far in Baldur's Gate I've gotten quite a few quests out of speaking with people. It is much harder to get quests in this game than in New Vegas, for example, as New Vegas NPCs have unique dialogue that separate them from generic NPCs, whereas in BG's you either have to talk to everyone indiscriminately or hover the cursor over them and see if they have a given name as opposed to "Commoner". Following the logic of "skip content", I would have missed many quests already and cool loot.

2), on the other hand, could work if it wasn't because (good) cRPGs are so sparse on content, like I mentioned before. In Arcanum, I had fun roleplaying as Cleve but only for a few hours. Eventually I realized Cleve's attitude of making enemies everywhere and insulting people would only make me skip quite a bit of content in the game (not to mention potentially turning entire places hostile), and that is so not cool.

I went from rude asshole to goody-two-shoes quite early in my Arcanum playthrough, and yet I still joined one of the gangs in the Boil because there simply was no reason not to.

 

[Roguey]

They already did though... https://www.tyrannygame.com/

Sure you're burning Tyranny's lack of major success here, but it wasn't intended for a small audience.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

Behead all storyfags.

 

[IncendiaryDevice]

They already did though... https://www.tyrannygame.com/

Sure you're burning Tyranny's lack of major success here, but it wasn't intended for a small audience.

What games are intended for small audiences? As in, what games are destined for small audiences that these supposed pygmies want to play? Tyranny was quite clearly designed with a minority in mind "an RPG where evil wins", so how can you say it was designed for the masses? The vast majority of casual gamers want to roleplay knights in shining armour - and possibly justifiably so, since RPGs are the only genre that allows them to do that.

 

[Lhynn]

Want to play an RPG where every sidequest is skippable and you can use even the most gimp weapon in the game and still do fine? Then you want to be playing skyrim.

Or Fallout.

My point was that open world games always offer the choice to ignore content. None of this shit we are discussing applies to TROO open world games for the most part. Unless they have checklist on their own.

 

[Lhynn]

Oh my God, people! I'm on your side! I've never advocated for skipping content and giving devs an excuse to make shitty side quests.

I know, im no taking sides here, im a lone warrior fighting on every front, trying my best to bring incline but knowing im doomed to fail horribly. I just disagree with you here.
I dislike the very notion of an argument having just two sides, better to just pick a hill and defend it than go with A or B.

That's Zombra's point.

Zombras point is retarded, much like the one making it. I already expressed my thoughts on his inanity back in the first page, i dont think it bears repeating.

 

[Dorateen]

Even linear computer role-playing games, like Icewind Dale, can have interesting side content. I quite enjoyed discovering the plans of the halfling at Kuldahar's inn, or taking on Auril's followers. Side content has always been a rich part of classic adventures, making up the tapestry of the wider gameworld. And the further detached from the central narrative, the better. The reason why such content is optional, is because none of it is railroaded or forced on the player. What a breath of fresh air to be free from the shackles of the developer's scripted actions. Giving the player the agency to do whatever they wish to attempt comes from the PnP tradition of characters trying anything they can think of when presented with a situation. Since the computer medium is more restricted, an ample amount of side content is a fine method to accomplish this design objective.

 

[Lacrymas]

But the halfling at Kuldahar's inn did alter the "main content", it gave you free rests/discounts while there. It might seem inconsequential, but at least it's something that makes sense in the big picture.

 

[Dorateen]

But the halfling at Kuldahar's inn did alter the "main content", it gave you free rests/discounts while there. It might seem inconsequential, but at least it's something that makes sense in the big picture.

No, that is a gameplay consequence. And every bit of side content, by its nature, will be beneficial to the player whether through acquisition of items or experience, mastering of mechanics.

The halfling example has no bearing on Poquelin's story, or the Ancient Enemy and is completely divorced from the main narrative.

 

[IncendiaryDevice]

IWD is chock full of fun little extra tidbits to the main adventure. Enough to make the world feel bigger without any of it overstaying its welcome. I'd say it was very similar to Dark Souls in this regard.

 

[Silva]

I suggest we speak of walls of texts and their place in videogames (aka: they have NO place in videogames).

That was my disagreement with Zombra. A game that wastes more resources telling a story through walls of text than actual play is like a movie telling a story through spoken narration - you have a fucking audio-visual medium, so use it gofdamn it. "Show don't tell" and all that crap. When I play a game I want to PLAY a game, not READ shit on the screen. The gross of the experience should explore the medium strenghts like interactivity, choices & consequences, etc. Let the walls of texts to books. And spoken narration to radios.


And before I forget: New Shadowrun is shit. All hail Genesis and SNES Shadowrun.

 

[Roguey]

What games are intended for small audiences? As in, what games are destined for small audiences that these supposed pygmies want to play?

Garage dev stuff. Age of Decadence, Underrail, and Grimoire being notable examples.

Tyranny was quite clearly designed with a minority in mind "an RPG where evil wins", so how can you say it was designed for the masses? The vast majority of casual gamers want to roleplay knights in shining armour - and possibly justifiably so, since RPGs are the only genre that allows them to do that.

The presentation, how combat was tuned, the marketing, Paradox themselves saying it performed less than they hoped. It was a lower-budget experimental title sure, but it wasn't meant just for mere thousands or tens of thousands. I bet Josh Sawyer's historical RPG will be though.

 

[Achiman]

I suggest we speak of walls of texts and their place in videogames (aka: they have NO place in videogames).

That was my disagreement with Zombra. A game that wastes more resources telling a story through walls of text than actual play is like a movie telling a story through spoken narration - you have a fucking audio-visual medium, so use it gofdamn it. "Show don't tell" and all that crap. When I play a game I want to PLAY a game, not READ shit on the screen. The gross of the experience should explore the medium strenghts like interactivity, choices & consequences, etc. Let the walls of texts to books. And spoken narration to radios.


And before I forget: New Shadowrun is shit. All hail Genesis and SNES Shadowrun.

I agree except where there are options for the player. I remember reading all the lusty argonian maid books and the vampire ones in Morrowind and enjoying the effort they had gone to.
Info dumps are never welcome because they instantly break immersion, doesn't have to be games movies are often really bad for this too.